add_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Explains beyond annotations: it is revisionable with tracked changes (w:ins) in body-story, and comment text/author metadata recorded in non-revision change manifest. Also notes ODT format behavior (office:annotation). Annotations only indicate destructiveHint=true, so this adds significant value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but well-structured: starts with main purpose, then usage patterns, format differences, and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly shortened without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and complexity of threaded comments vs root, the description covers purpose, parameter use cases, format limitations, and behavioral impact. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. Slightly more could be done to clarify prerequisites or error conditions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining two usage patterns (root vs reply), the effect of omitting anchor_text (anchors to entire paragraph), and defaults for initials. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool adds comments or threaded replies, distinguishes two modes (root vs reply), and specifies supported formats (DOCX, ODT) with DOCX-only for threaded replies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_comment or get_comments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear instructions on when to use target_paragraph_id+anchor_text versus parent_comment_id, and notes format-specific limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like batch_edit or insert_paragraph.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.